cigchat_team_bot_users

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is a GET request, the endpoint path, and the required 'Manage Team' scope, which indicates a read operation with a permission requirement. However, it omits details about pagination behavior, default limits, response format, or whether filters combine as AND/OR, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 11 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of one core sentence plus the endpoint and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. The minor typo 'seaching' slightly detracts but does not affect overall clarity or structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 11 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the response contains, default pagination values, or how filters interact. It does provide the endpoint and auth scope, but for a tool with this parameter complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavior without additional assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions name, phone, and email as searchable fields, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify filter combination logic, default values, or the meaning of 'and so on' for the remaining parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get list of bot users' with a specific resource and filtering by name, phone, email. It includes the HTTP endpoint and required scope, helping to distinguish it from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_bot_users_count or cigchat_team_members. However, the phrase 'and so on' is vague and doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other subscriber list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over cigchat_search_subscribers or other list tools. The only contextual hint is the 'Manage Team' scope, which is an authorization prerequisite rather than a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.